BY AMBER MAC for Fast Company

While chatting with a business colleague yesterday, she made a statement that I hear all too often from my female friends. As an independent contractor, her client asked her to do a significant amount of additional work that was not part of their original deal. Instead of asking for more compensation, she said she would probably just put in the extra hours, because she felt uncomfortable launching into the money conversation. In fact, she even apologized to me about how she hesitated with her client and was worried there would be repercussions.

Just recently, I finished the New York Times best seller, Think: Straight Talk for Women to Stay Smart in a Dumbed-Down World by Lisa Bloom, an insightful read about how women are leading the charge in many areas, such as outperforming men for the first time ever in employment in urban areas, but still spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on the “wrong” things. While the book centers on our obsession with pop culture and beauty, what I took away from it was the need for women to start saying “no” more and to stop apologizing for doing so.

“Women need to stop apologizing for routine workplace events,” Bloom shared with me in an email. “Ladies, every time the word ‘sorry’ is about to fly out of your mouth, think: Have I actually done something wrong? Or has this just become a verbal tic?”

Here are three things that women often apologize for and what we can do to stop, today.
1. Our financial expectations. Ever since women entered the workforce en masse, there have been reports revealing that we make less on average than our male counterparts. Although this gap is lessening, there is still much progress to be made. Yes, talking about money can be an uncomfortable endeavor. However, if you’re armed with good ammunition to back up your demand, you’ll feel more confident and ready to engage in that dialogue. In other words, be clear what you want, and don’t leave until you get it (well, within reason). Moreover, when in contract negotiations for any job or project, engage an advisor so that you have a second set of eyes on the details and can work out what’s acceptable and what’s not with someone well-versed in the small print.
?
2. Our physical appearance. Earlier this week I did a little tally of how long it took me to prepare for one of my other jobs, working as a national TV host on a business news network. The night before our shoot, I spent two hours with my clothing sponsor picking out my wardrobe for upcoming shoots. The next morning I spent two hours getting my hair done, two hours getting my nails done, and 30 minutes in makeup just before the show. Almost a full day, and I haven’t even started my job, compared with my co-host, who literally grabbed a clean shirt and was ready to go (yes, he’s male).

While I understand that the demands of the broadcast business insofar as appearance are significant, that same pressure does exist in the average workplace and requires added time for women (time most of us don’t have). I have heard women apologize countless times if they’re not looking runway-ready at work, due to everything from pulling all-nighters to get a job done or battling sleep deprivation due to taking care of a sick child. Sure, it’s important to look professional in the workplace, but it’s time to lessen the pressure we put on ourselves to look perfect. Oh, and while I’m on this subject, let’s try to band together a little more to support our female colleagues who might not always be in season with the latest fashion or who are not the perfect size 6 (or is it 4 now?). Instead, let’s focus on what’s important–what we achieve.

3. Our professional accomplishments. “Women are trained to be sensitive to everyone’s feelings, not to be selfish, and not to brag,” Bloom explains to me when I ask about this culture of saying sorry. “These are good traits to have. Be we also need to understand that sometimes it’s not appropriate to apologize–like when we haven’t done anything wrong.”

When I was starting my career as a television journalist in my 20s, I’ll never forget an experience I had with my male boss. I rushed into his office to share with him that I just got asked to be a national technology expert on a popular news program. He looked up at me and said, “Fantastic, it’s just a matter of time before you’ll be on the cover of Playboy!” I kid you not. Instead of standing up for myself, I shrunk into myself and tried to battle his sarcasm with a muted apology about how this was a big deal because I’m from a small town, worked really hard, and such an offer meant a lot to me. Ugh, if only I could turn back time and take Bloom’s advice, “In the workplace we need to take responsibility for our mistakes, sure, but also for our successes,” she says. “Many women can do the former but not the latter.”

In a way, the controversies surrounding Ashley Judd’s puffy face has done immense good. Not only have our media exposed themselves as sexist scavengers that perpetuate fascist beauty standards in evaluating women’s worth in our society, but this so-called news update has allowed for an emergence of a much needed dialogue on a much undermined feminist issue. And who better than Ashley Judd herself to confront the pernicious impacts of yellow journalism that comprise mass media selling points today?

Judd raises several critical questions that inform such innocent curiosities of bystanders on puffy faces. Such insulated have we become within ourselves against attacks on our collective human intelligence that we have ended up evaluating each other based on how we measure up against a strict yardstick of beauty that generates advertising money. Such depraved are we today as never before in terms of recognizing our unique selves that we crave to adulate a physical form that requires validation from outside before it can appeal to our inner selves.

Through her powerful, evocative and emancipatory writing in true feministic traditions, Ashley Judd also reminds us of our vulnerabilities of constantly being judged while we accept the assaults silently. If it requires courage, conviction and a public platform for a celebrity of her stature to register a protest, how ridiculously difficult it must be for young children and teenagers today who are constantly subjected to reminders of their less than ideal body image?

Judd compels us to interrogate our shoddy privileges when we denigrate the less ideal bodies and how it becomes more pathetic as women are asked to “better watch out” in fear of the philandering husband. She forces us to reexamine traditional components of patriarchal setups that conveniently blame the men exclusively and she reminds how grim the situation really is today when most women are falling for the sexist spells. That, she was first criticized by women for her looks is no mere coincidence. In fact, like gullible and willful agents of patriarchy – a system mirrored after dominant male perspectives – women unquestioningly look upto and emulate the male priorities and adapt to them as their own. Especially in the entertainment industry, where the male producers amass the wealth, it is the female performers that feel emancipated through approved looks. Ashley Judd minces no words, makes her personal political, and reflects upon her career of approvals that has received significant jolts along the way whenever she has failed to satisfy the conditions fulfilling beauty criterion.

She writes, “this abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women…..In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood.”

Entire article can be found on The Daily Beast.

Travis Waldron of Think Progress comments on Gov. Scott Walker’s latest decision that will jeopardize the interests of wage discrimination victims.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly repealed his state’s equal pay law last week, a decision that will make it harder for victims of wage discrimination to sue for lost earnings and back wages. The law was enacted primarily to address the massive pay gap that exists between male and female workers, which is even bigger in Wisconsin than in other states.

Repealing the law was a no-brainer for state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R), who led the effort because of his belief that pay discrimination is a myth driven by liberal women’s groups. Ignoring multiple studies showing that the pay gap exists, Grothman blamed females for prioritizing childrearing and homemaking instead of money, saying, “Money is more important for men,” The Daily Beast reports:

Whatever gaps exist, he insists, stem from women’s decision to prioritize childrearing over their careers. “Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers,” he says. “But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they’re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.” [...]
Grothman doesn’t accept these studies. When I ran the numbers by him, he replied, “The American Association of University Women is a pretty liberal group.” Nor, he argued, does its conclusion take into account other factors, like “goals in life. You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”

Among Grothman’s inaccuracies is the idea that only males “expect to be a breadwinner someday.” In two-thirds of American families, women are either primary or co-breadwinners, and yet they still earn less than their male counterparts in all 50 states.

In 2011, the Wisconsin GOP carried out an extensive war on workers that led to recall efforts for state representatives, senators, and Walker himself. In 2012, Grothman and his colleagues have expanded that war to one on women, meaning a group of workers that was already struggling to keep pace with their male counterparts is only going to fall further behind.

A new report from the National Women’s Law Center reveals that health insurance companies are charging women an extra billion dollars annually. Why? Straight up gender discrimination, of course. The report finds a widespread practice of for-profit health insurers charging women more than men for the identical coverage. and states are doing very little to stop the thievery. In the states that don’t ban health insurance gender discrimination, 92% of the best-selling plans charge women more than men. President Obama’s Affordable Care Act would ban this practice nationally – saving women a billion dollars a year. Too bad for women that Republicans are working as hard as they can to repeal the law, commonly called Obamacare. Is the war against women affecting you yet?

92% of best-selling insurance plans gender rate
- By Common Dreams staff
According to a report from the non-profit National Women’s Law Center, the practice of health insurance companies charging women more than men for the same coverage is rampant, and costs women one billion dollars a year.
The report, Turning to Fairness: Insurance discrimination against women today and the Affordable Care Act (pdf), states that although insurance companies are aware of this discrimination, they have not taken steps to eliminate the widespread practice.
Some states have banned the practice, the group reports, but it won’t end nationally until the full enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2014.
From the report:
Gender rating, the practice of charging women different premiums than men, results in significantly higher rates charged to women throughout the country. In states that have not banned the practice, the vast majority, 92%, of best-selling plans gender rate, for example, charging 40-year-old women more than 40-year-old men for coverage. Only 3% of these plans cover maternity services.? 
Based on an average of currently advertised premiums and the most recent data on the number of women in the individual health insurance market, the practice of gender rating costs women approximately $1 billion a year.? 
Even with maternity coverage excluded, nearly a third of plans examined charge 25- and 40-year-old women at least 30% more than men for the same coverage and in some cases, the difference is far greater. For example, one company charged 25-year-old women 85% more than men for the same coverage, again excluding maternity coverage altogether. These differences result in women paying significantly more for health insurance every year than their male counterparts. For example, one plan in South Dakota charges a 40-year-old woman $1252.80 more a year than a 40-year-old man for the same coverage.? 
The Affordable Care Act applies nationally and eliminates gender rating in the individual market, requires all plans on the individual market to provide maternity coverage, and prohibits sex discrimination in health plans from insurance companies that receive federal funds or are conducted by the federal government.

Jack Tuckner is the featured expert in this incisive Lawyers.com analysis of pregnancy discrimination at the workplace.

Written by Ada Kulesza for Lawyers.com

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has found a sharp increase in pregnancy discrimination complaints over the past 10 years. Women complained of violations that ranged from getting fired during pregnancy or immediately after, to being assigned lower-paying positions because of their condition.
• In Pennsylvania, a chiropractor notified her employer when she found out she was pregnant. She was hospitalized for nearly two weeks with severe morning sickness that nearly led to dehydration. The company fired the mother-to-be and terminated her health care within days of her notice, and hired a replacement. She’s suing under the EEOC for an undisclosed amount, and the company counter-sued her for $50,000, claiming that she left her job and neglected to fulfill her contract obligations. 
• In another case, a judge ordered a Wisconsin medical staffing company to pay $148,000 to a woman, Roxy Leger, who was fired when she took maternity leave following the birth of her son. The settlement resulted from a default judgment, when the company failed to retain an attorney after a court order. According to the EEOC, the company owner “referred to Leger’s pregnancy as a joke; insisted that maternity leave should last no more than a couple of days; suggested that Leger’s pre-natal appointments were a ruse for additional time off or for money; and gave Leger an offensive diagram of a machine which would allow Leger to return from her maternity leave sooner … HCS terminated Leger’s employment and health insurance while she was still in the hospital recovering from a Cesarean section … Leger learned of her termination days later by certified mail,” reports the human resources company Workforce.
• A part-time UPS employee needed to avoid lifting more than 20 pounds during her pregnancy. “Given that UPS had a policy of giving light duty to various other employees who were physically unable to do their usual job,” she assumed the company would accommodate her temporary condition, writes Emily Martin, Vice President of the Women’s Law Center. Instead, they forced her to take unpaid maternity leave, and she lost her medical coverage “months prior to the birth of her child.” She wound up losing her pregnancy discrimination case.
 
Labor Pains

“I’m a businessman. I understand what it’s like to have a pain in the butt employee,” says Jack Tuckner, an attorney specializing in women’s rights and father of two daughters. “Pick a master, you can’t pick two. You have a corporate master. It’s so competitive, with ‘unemployed need not apply’ and jobs leaving the country. The fact is, you’re pregnant, and you’re going to be compromised.”
Tuckner says sex, pregnancy and disability constitute the “Holy Trinity” of discrimination. And he says where sexual harassment and gender bias have leveled off in recent years, pregnancy discrimination is on the rise. Especially because employers deliberately deceive women about their rights to maternity leave.
“You have an employee who’s out of the game for three months, and they aren’t necessarily looking at you as a human being who’s looking for compassion – you’re at home watching HBO!”
He says lying has become more brazen to cheat women out of their lawful rights, which are paltry compared to other developed countries where women get paid maternity leave, such as Germany and the Netherlands. Even a corporation that sells products to women, with mostly female employees, lies to their employees, using the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to get them to resign, so they cannot demand maternity leave or accommodation. “Those calls don’t stop coming in,” the attorney says. It’s especially easy to dupe lower-income women who have less education – women who are more likely to be single mothers, who need the employment more desperately.
If they fire the pregnant woman, it would constitute a violation of the FMLA, so they’ll coax a resignation instead. “Pregnancy is a disability, legally. If you have medical challenges, it’s deserving of a reasonable accommodation,” Tuckner says. A woman on maternity leave will be “out of the game,” and companies see her “as damaged goods.”
The attorney says a few questions will tell a woman if she might have a pregnancy discrimination case. Tuckner says, “You said, ‘Hello employer, I’m pregnant, I need to know what my status is.’ Now, the terms and conditions of my employment with this company, have they changed? Have they been degraded? Have they been altered as a result of my status? After you notified them, or they noticed your pregnancy. If something about my pregnancy is causing a change in my work status that I feel uncomfortable about, it’s the first sign of (discrimination).”
Women can file a complaint with the EEOC, and can seek a consultation with a good women’s rights lawyer. You can find more information and steps you can take to protect yourself here.

Little is known about the Abortion Provider Appreciation Day. March 10 is observed to celebrate abortion providers because it is essential to recognize that Crisis Pregnancy Centers are fake “clinics” driven by anti-abortion agenda. They often have no clinical staff, spread lies, guilt-trip women and enormously delay and complicate women’s ability to access abortion.

New York City today witnessed a protest and march against sites of women’s oppression. The march started from the St. Patrick’s Cathedral on 5th Avenue because the Catholic Church’s approach to women, gender, science and sexuality is a Dark Ages disaster! The Pope has condemned condoms (causing millions of HIV/AIDS deaths). The Church condemns homosexuality and insists that “divorce is a sin” (contributing to women staying in abusive marriages). Recently, Catholic Bishops urged “non-compliance with new regulations requiring health insurance to cover birth control!

Registering the protest at St. Patrick's Cathedral

The March to Times Square was aimed at protesting the objectification of women. Women’s near naked and rail-thin bodies are used to sell everything from clothes to cars to “American culture” to the entire world. Protesters also targeted the US Military Recruiting Center because US military’s quasi-official reliance on brothels as a “perk” to make soldiers and the role of military forces in trafficking women and girls and the epidemic of rape, harassment and violence against female soldiers are core issues that needs addressing.

International Women’s Day celebrations in New York also witnessed a march to and protest strip clubs. American men spend an estimated $15 billion a year on strip clubs, as compared to $4 billion on baseball. Strip clubs have always objectified and degraded women. But as women have entered – and fought for increasing respect in – the public sphere, strip clubs have become an enclave for sexism and male entitlement towards women’s bodies. Further, strip clubs prey upon the desperation, abuse and addiction of many women, including trafficked women.

As one of the organizers, Sunsara Taylor from Stop Patriarchy points out, “Our protest is not symbolic. It is a beginning. It is a declaration. From now, until we win the full liberation of women, this war on women will be resisted with conscience, anger, imagination, massive mobilization, and relentless determination to turn the tide.”

Media Coordinator for this report:
Saswat Pattanayak – spattanayak@womensrightsny.com

Kathryn Pereda was fired because her employer said she did not qualify for FMLA leave. She sued and the court found on her behalf.

Appellate judges noted that neither they nor apparently any other circuit court had considered this issue. They had dodged the question in a ruling involving an employee who wanted leave before she was eligible. But believing that FMLA actually requires employees to give their employers as much notice as possible of their impending need for leave, they ruled for Perry on her interference claim and sent the retaliation claim back to the district court for reconsideration.

The intent of the law was to set up protection for pregnant women though employers continue to use it to instead fire them. Or worse, tell them they have to quit further aggravating their situation.

Brief Summary -
Appellant Kathryn Pereda (“Pereda”) appealed the district court’s dismissal of  her complaint alleging violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., by Appellee Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. (“Brookdale”).  The district court held that because Pereda was not an “eligible employee” at the time she was terminated, she could not bring her claims under the FMLA.  The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding Pereda stated sufficient facts to establish prima facie claims for both FMLA interference and retaliation.

Extended Summary –
Pereda filed suit against her employer, Brookdale, alleging claims for interference (Count I) and retaliation (Count II) under the FMLA.  Her complaint asserted that Brookdale interfered with her FMLA rights by denying her benefits to which she was entitled, and by terminating her for attempting to exercise those rights.  Brookdale moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The district court dismissed Pereda’s complaint, reasoning that Brookdale could not have interfered with Pereda’s FMLA rights, because she was not entitled to FMLA leave at the time that she requested it.  The district court also held that since Pereda was not eligible for FMLA leave, she could not have engaged in protected activity; thus, Brookdale could not have retaliated against her.  Pereda appealed, presenting the Eleventh Circuit with an issue of first impression.

After examining the various elements of the FMLA regulatory scheme, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.  With respect to Pereda’s interference claim, the court held that it must construe Pereda as “eligible” for FMLA protection.  In so holding, the court noted that because the FMLA requires notice in advance of future leave, employees are protected from interference prior to the occurrence of a triggering event, such as the birth of a child; otherwise, “a loophole is created whereby an employer has total freedom to terminate an employee before she can ever become eligible.”  The court further held that Pereda alleged a valid cause of action for retaliation under the FMLA, because a pre-eligible discussion of post-eligible FMLA leave is protected activity.

For every 95 guys on a construction site, there are five women. Construction work is a boys club.
If you can break through, it’s a living…

Katherine Bowers of WorkingMother.com ponders over the lives of Construction Moms –

She can wrangle a forklift, swing a sledgehammer and drive a nail in three quick blows. Yet when Stephanie Hall, 40, walks onto a new job in her hard hat and Wolverine boots, she’s invariably mistaken for the site secretary. “I say, ‘Nope, I’m your new boss. Guess where you’re starting off today?’” quips the project manager for D.A.G. Construction in Cincinnati and mom of one. Still, she says, “I have to prove myself on every new job. You can see the looks that go, ‘Okay, it’s a woman—can she hack it?’”
Wendy Beaver knows that look and has learned to ignore it, as well as the wolf whistles shot her way. The 40-year-old project engineer for Donahue Favret Contractors is now helping rebuild the downtown New Orleans Hyatt, its blown-out windows an enduring image of Hurricane Katrina’s wrath. Each morning, Wendy drives 30 miles to drop off daughter Hope, 10, at the nearest bus stop. Then she drives 45 miles in the opposite direction to the job site. But once there, she’s often so absorbed by work that she has to force herself to take bathroom breaks. The hotel is her firm’s biggest job yet, a powerful symbol of her hometown’s efforts to rise again: “It feels great to help bring this hotel back to New Orleans.”
A Man’s World?
A full 66 percent of our country’s employment is construction work—and not surprisingly, it’s a boys’ club. For every 95 guys on a construction site, there are five women. Because they’re facing down stereotypes, these women have to keep up. Always. “You carry your own tools; you do everything men do,” says Pat Walker, craft resource and safety manager for Welbro Building Corp. in Maitland, FL, and president of the National Association of Women in Construction Education Foundation. “I hate climbing ladders, but I do it anyway,” says the mom of three adult children.
For Pat, Stephanie, Wendy and other moms, construction is a calling. It’s challenging, it pays well, and, yes, it’s cool. As in, See that? Mommy built that. Stephanie lives for those moments: while working on a new library in her town, she drove 4-year old son Shane by the project weekly so he could watch the structure rise.
Wear Pink? Puh-leaze “It’s my favorite color, but I refuse to wear a pink hard hat,” says Wendy (though the shade can be useful—if a guy borrows her pink tape measure, it’s always returned.) But as Maura Hesdon, 34, Senior Project Manager for Shoemaker Construction in West Conshohocken, PA, asserts, you “don’t need to look butch. I look like a woman on the job. I have very long hair, and I wear earrings. I don’t wear makeup because I’m too lazy, but I would if I felt like it.”
A No-Frills Workplace?Nothing’s cushy on a job site. Lunch? The roach coach. Gotta go? Portapotty’s over there—though this is one place without an endless ladies’ line. where to stash supplies? Your car. A dry shirt, clean socks, water, snacks and ibuprofen. Everyone has a towel, too, Pat says, great for wiping sweat, drying off after a rain shower and draping over the front seat when driving home in dirty work clothes.
And it’s not just conditions that can be rough. Language is salty, tempers flare, people shout. “Men blow up, then they blow it off. They can be screaming and then your best friend ten minutes later,” says Roxanne Rivera, President and CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors of New Mexico and author of There’s No Crying in Business. She ran her own construction company for decades, learning that “women couch what they say so they don’t hurt feelings, but men are blunt. That doesn’t mean it’s personal.”
Vital to this job are a sense of humor and an ability to dish it out. “When someone calls me ‘honey,’” says Maura, “I say right back, ‘This is my name.’”
A Decent Paycheck?In 2010, even with a continuing building slump, the mean wage for a laborer was $16 per hour (though, as in most fields, men still out earn women). Mastering equipment, rising to supervisor or learning a trade means earning significantly more. “We say, ‘the more you learn, the more you earn,’” says Pat.
And many skills can be picked up on the job. Raises can come as often as every six months, fattening take home by $.75 or $1 more per hour. “It’s a good living,” says Maura, a single mom who owns her own home and is sole breadwinner for her daughters, Madison, 9, and Hannah, 6. “I’m proud of the lessons of independence I’m setting for my girls.”
Yet Maura is quick to admit it’s tricky to balance the not-so-family friendly demands of the job with raising kids. Commutes to work sites are often long, shifts can start pre-dawn (when concrete is typically poured), and you can’t bring your kids to work on construction sites, ever. Problems often need immediate attention: after thieves stole the copper piping off her building, Stephanie spent a chunk of Christmas morning on-site. Still, there is flexibility. Don’t look for it in the employee handbook, but every mom we talked to agreed that once you prove yourself, you’ll be accommodated for family needs. When Wendy was assigned to the Hyatt project and worried about getting Hope to school, her supervisor said, “Don’t change her routine. Just get to the job when you can.”
There’s genuine camaraderie because the focus is more on team achievement—getting the building up on time and under budget—than on pecking order. When something needs to be done, everyone pitches in, from the newbie to the superintendent. Maura is the number three at her company, but when a 200-pound, 40-foot extension ladder needed to be hauled half a mile across a rooftop, her title didn’t matter. A male co-worker grabbed one end, and Maura hefted the other.

By Jessica Samakow for The Huffington Post

Amy Zvovushe, 31, had a new job (as a senior program manager at a marketing company in Connecticut) and a new baby on the way. But instead of colleagues sending congratulatory cards and putting stork decorations on her desk, Zvovushe says that when she announced her pregnancy at work, she was asked to resign. The company didn’t offer her maternity leave because she had only worked there for four months, and the federal Family Medical Leave Act says employees must work for a full year to be eligible.

After she got this news, Zvovushe had a later conversation with human resources. ABC News reports that she recorded this discussion without telling them, and caught several alarming statements on tape. For example, the executive said:
“You don’t receive protection under FMLA so technically if you don’t come to work… it doesn’t matter whether you’re having you’re appendix out or you’re having a baby or you’re dealing with a sick person you didn’t show up for work on Monday.”

Zvovushe’s attorney, Jack Tuckner, then contacted the company to straighten out the situation, and likely because Zvovushe had the HR rep’s harsh words recorded, they agreed to grant her leave to care for her baby.

“Because they were able to fix it, they say no harm, no foul,” her attorney said to ABC.

But Zvovushe is only one of many pregnant woman discriminated against at work. In the U.S., women are fired every day for being pregnant, Dina Bakst, a lawyer and founder/president of A Better Balance: The Work and Family Legal Center wrote in a recent Op-ed for the NY Times. She blames the gap between discrimination laws and disability laws for the injustice.

Federal and state laws ban discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace. And amendments to the Americans With Disabilities Act require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees (including most employees with medical complications arising from pregnancies) who need them to do their jobs. But because pregnancy itself is not considered a disability, employers are not obligated to accommodate most pregnant workers in any way.

Considering three-quarters of the women who enter the work force will become pregnant, Bakst calls for action. She highlights New York State Senator Liz Krueger and Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther of Sullivan County who have introduced legislation that “would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant women whose health care providers say they need them.”

Some states have made significant progress. According to NY Times, “as of 2010, seven states, including California, had passed laws requiring private employers to provide at least some accommodations.” And many companies — including those on Working Mother Magazine’s list of top 100 companies for mothers — work to create flexible, supportive environments for pregnant women, even if the law doesn’t require them to.

Jeannette Cox, a law professor at the University of Dayton, is also fighting for pregnant women’s rights in the workplace. She argues that pregnancy should be considered a disability. Though pregnant woman are covered under the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, some protections under the ADA don’t apply to pregnant women and Cox says it’s time for a change.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is scheduled to host a hearing about pregnancy discrimination this month, ABC news reports.

A group of moms have brought city’s attention to the manner in which Facebook confirms to the otherwise sexist norms in our society when it comes to breastfeeding rights.

Although the protests took place at Facebook office lobby at 335, Madison Avenue, Facebook officials did not feel it necessary to address the gathering, or more importantly, the issue. Emma Kwasnica, the woman who launched this global movement against Facebook believes that the employees of this powerful corporation are “running rougue” and deleting images owing to their personal sensitivity. However the reality is, by turning indifferent to her protests, Facebook has been consistently adhering to the patriarchal standards. And there lies the greater crisis.

The online moral czars have flexibilities otherwise deemed illegal. For instance, in public, a women in New York has the right to breastfeed her baby in any public or private place where she has a right to be. This includes stores, day care centers, doctors’ offices, restaurants, parks, movie theaters and many other places. No one can tell her to leave any of these places because she is breastfeeding, and no one can tell her to breastfeed in a bathroom, a basement or a private room. Likewise, at work, the employer cannot discriminate against a woman for choosing to breastfeed her baby or for pumping milk at work.

Facebook and other social media which self-regulate for the most part, need to be not just politically correct, but more importantly, socially responsible by following women’s rights laws. Or stricter regulations need to be in place for private corporations, irrespective of whether they claim to be freedom loving virtual/social media networks.

Following news reporting by Cassandra Garrison for Metro details the protest, and its impact –

An international movement landed in NYC this morning as a small group of women carried their young children inside the building that houses Facebook’s NYC office, demanding that the social networking giant leave their breastfeeding photos alone.
The “nurse-in” was planned after Vancouver mom Emma Kwasnica launched an online campaign, calling on Facebook to stop deleting images of mothers nursing their children. Kwasnica said Facebook removed her photos numerous times, despite the company’s claim that it does not delete images unless they show an exposed breast that is not being used for feeding.
The group of moms who attended the NYC “nurse-in” insist that even though the photos are acceptable by Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, they are continually removed. They met in the lobby of 335 Madison Avenue, the building where Facebook operates on two floors. The small contingent was first asked to leave but later returned to the lobby where security allowed them to stay. The moms nursed their children and chanted lines like, “Facebook, Facebook, don’t be mean — breastfeeding is not obscene.”
“People view breasts as this sexual thing,” said Wendy Ledesma, an Astoria mom who has a 17-month-old son. “We need to get over that as a society and realize that breastfeeding is normal, natural, beautiful and important.”
No one from Facebook came downstairs to address the moms, but a spokesperson blamed the deleted photos on human error. Each photo that gets flagged as offensive is reviewed by an employee who then decides whether the photo will be deleted and the user’s account frozen.